US army private Bradley Manning has asked the court to accept a partially guilty plea that takes responsibility for leaking government documents to WikiLeaks.
Manning's lawyer David Coombs said on his blog that Manning was willing to plead "by exceptions and substitutions", where he doesn't admit he's guilty of the specific …

COMMENTS

Page:

A crucial bit missing.

The crucial bit of information here is what kind of prison term the partial guilty plea carries with it or at least what the prosecutor would ask the court to sentence him to, or what it would permit the court to sentence him to. Also if he willing and able to implicate anyone else who aided and abetted him.

Re: A crucial bit missing.

Presumably death would be the *maximum* sentence - the plea-bargain would involve admitting some of it in exchange for something rather less permanent, like 10 years in prison. Admitting he revealed information he wasn't allowed to, for example, but denying that he did so in order to help 'the enemy', making the charge and sentence less severe. "Yes, I pushed him down stairs, but I didn't mean to break his neck and kill him, that bit was an accident" - still murder/manslaughter, but a shorter sentence than if the court convicts you of deliberately killing the person.

Quite why he dumped such a massive stash of random junk - obscure gossip about diplomats etc - I still can't see: 'blowing the whistle' on some particular underhand dealing, I could understand, but chucking a huge dump of classified stuff to a website en mass? An odd thing to do.

Re: Too bad ACs can't pick their icon...

Re: Too bad ACs can't pick their icon...

And if you didn't follow the Führer's orders you'd be put to death. While it's true that 'just following orders' isn't a defence, it doesn't mean there won't be consequences if you decide not to follow them.

Re: Too bad ACs can't pick their icon...

"When you join the armed forces, you agree to follow orders, do your duty, etc"

Even soldiers are bound to higher moral ideals than simply following orers, not only morally but also legally (eg Geneva Conventions). For example if a superior officer orders a soldier to torture a prisoner, or asks the soldier to open fire on innocent civilians, that order is illegal and the soldier is duty bound to inform the chain of command higher up. Similairly the soldier is duty bound to inform the chain of command if such acts are happening that they have knowledge of.

In Private Manning's case, since the chain of command immediately above him was ignoring illegal acts, he was perfectly justified in going as far up the chain of command as was necessary to reveal and stop such illegal acts. In the case of the US, the CoC is the president, and the president's boss is the American public.

Re: Too bad ACs can't pick their icon...

PS - in this specific case since Manning DID release a lot more (and pretty random) stuff than just exposing US pilots firing on civilians, he's still due some accountability, so I don't think he should be getting off scot-free. But 'aiding the enemy', 'treason' is too much, and death penalty seem a bit stiff to me.

Re: Re: Too bad ACs can't pick their icon...

".....In Private Manning's case, since the chain of command immediately above him was ignoring illegal acts...." James, maybe you could take the time in between hyperventilating shrieks to supply us details of exactly which events you claim were being "ignored"? By Manning's own messages to St Jules they have him claiming to have found the chopper vid so hacked up by St Jules in a JAG's folder - do you have any idea what a JAG is? It's a Naval officer that is a lawyer for the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the people that investigate and prosecute military crimes. And guess what - they cleared the chopper crew. Try again!

"And guess what - they cleared the chopper crew. Try again!"

So the Judge Advocate General's Corp cleared the crew. Chisel that onto a tablet, and bring it down from Sinai.

But wait a minute. "Elisabeth Bumiller at The New York Times noted that at the time of the 2007 incident the military had cited "hostile" fire in the area. But now she observed flatly that "the video does not show hostile action." Yet a military investigation after the incident had cleared the copter crews and no disciplinary action was taken."

A jury containing nine blacks acquitted O. J. Simpson of murdering his wife and her boyfriend. Maybe you hadn't heard?

Re: "And guess what - they cleared the chopper crew. Try again!"

In short, what you're saying is you disregard the result of the official investigation simply because it is an official investigation, and then base your non-argument on a civilian trial event rather than a military one. If all military investigations were pre-destined to be acquitted then there would be no convictions for crimes for any US forces personnel in Iraq, whereas the obvious truth is there have been several. You also ignore the fact that US and Iraqi forces operating in the area were under attack from militia and it was the chopper's role to find and attack any such militia moving into positions from which they could attack. Once again your ability to objectively evaluate the situation is destroyed by the political blinkers you wear with what can only be considered misplaced and ignorant pride.

"Knowledge is only effective if you know what facts not to bother with."

"And guess what - they cleared the chopper crew." Was that a trick question? Do most college graduates answer 'they charged the copter crew?'

" you disregard the result of the official investigation simply because it is an official investigation" No. I disregard it because it's BOTH an official and a military investigation. It's the two strikes rule.

"and then base your non-argument on a civilian trial event rather than a military one." Truth is truth and justice is justice, regardless of the court or tribunal. That goes for perjury and injustice, too.

"You also ignore the fact that US and Iraqi forces operating in the area were under attack from militia and it was the chopper's role to find and attack any such militia moving into positions from which they could attack." I don't know much about evidence in a military tribunal.

"On November 17, 1970, the United States Army charged 14 officers, including Major General Samuel W. Koster, the Americal Division's commanding officer, with suppressing information related to the incident. Most of those charges were later dropped. Brigade commander Henderson was the only officer who stood trial on charges relating to the cover-up; he was acquitted on December 17, 1971.[46]

"In a four-month-long trial, despite claims that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, Calley was convicted on March 29, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison at hard labor. Two days later, however, President Richard Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve three and one-half years under house arrest at Fort Benning."(Wikipedia)

Some armies 'shoot anything that moves' all the time; all armies 'shoot anything that moves' some of the time. It's just not acceptable. Not even for the best of armies. When we were told we had to accept the less-than-perfect as perfect, our problems began.

As George Orwell said.

“On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”

Re: "Knowledge is only effective if you know what facts not to bother with."

Local Dupe, once again you are taking a completely unrelated case, the My Lai massacare, and applying it to the chopper attack. It's also contradictory as you previously said you couldn't trust a judgement from a military court and then base your "shoot anything" argument on the judgement of an US military court. Sorry, but you're just chasing your own tail there. Whilst I know it's SOP for the anti-war faithful to insist that My Lai means EVERY US soldier is a murderer that will shoot civillians on sight, this is patently untrue. I really shouldn't expect any better from you but that was simply disappointing. I suspect this is some kind of psychological trick the pro-Wikitwits try to play on themselves, trying to big-up the "revelations" that Manning released so he can gain some form of "heroic" status, when the reality is he threw a tanturm and dumped everything in reach.

Hey, I think we've been around this block before.

Remember? I compared the predictability of Bradley Manning's court martial with that of Alfred Dreyfuss' and you had a hissy fit. It's deja vu all over again.

First I said: "the Judge Advocate General's Corp cleared the crew....... A jury containing nine blacks acquitted O. J. Simpson of murdering his wife and her boyfriend."

So you said: "you disregard the result of the official investigation simply because it is an official investigation, and then base your non-argument on a civilian trial event rather than a military one."

I reply: (quoting Wikipedia) ""On November 17, 1970, the United States Army charged 14 officers, including Major General Samuel W. Koster, the Americal Division's commanding officer, with suppressing information related to the incident. Most of those charges were later dropped. Brigade commander Henderson was the only officer who stood trial on charges relating to the cover-up; he was acquitted on December 17, 1971.[46]

"In a four-month-long trial, despite claims that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, Calley was convicted on March 29, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison at hard labor. Two days later, however, President Richard Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve three and one-half years under house arrest at Fort Benning."

You lost it: "once again you are taking a completely unrelated case, the My Lai massacre, and applying it to the chopper attack." [Exactly your approach to Manning and Dreyfuss]. Anyone not blinded by prejudice and anger sees I am not referring to the massacre at My Lai.

Repeating your words: '"you disregard the result of the official investigation simply because it is an official investigation, and then base your non-argument on a civilian trial event rather than a military one."

I gave you two military tribunals. The decision to charge officers and then drop the charges for their involvement and unlawful orders at My Lai and the decision not to charge the chopper crew were made by identical and related procedures. Get over it.

There are at least 3 kinds of courts martial 1) betraying fellow soldiers in action, 2) mistreating civilians and pows, and 3) disobeying the ROE at the command of a superior officer. It is sufficient to say to say the tribunals for My Lai and the chopper attack fell under the last.

It's time you quit playing these tricks (now it see it, now I don't) and conformed to the rules of engagement at el reg.

Re: Hey, I think we've been around this block before.

"....I compared the predictability of Bradley Manning's court martial with that of Alfred Dreyfuss' ...." Yes, and we've already debunked that one - Dreyfus was a professional soldier that wanted to fight and was undone by anti-semites, whereas Manning was just an unstable psycho with severe personality issues including gender confusion, given to bouts of rage and suspected of being suicidal and a danger to others even before the Wikidump (remember, his personal weapon was removed due to his erratic and violent behaviour long before he was arrested). Simply circling back to an old and already defeated issue is just making you look desperate. Dreyfus was tried without die process and without evidence, whereas it looks like there is plenty of evidence against Manning and a painstakingly open display of due process.

"....I gave you two military tribunals...." Yeah, sandwiched either side of the civil OJ trial. Please leave off the illegal substances before your next post or you'll be comparing Manning to the trial of Guy Fawkes, and the really sad bit is the Anonyputzs would probably like that as they seem to have as little grasp of history and reality as yourself.

"....It's time you quit playing these tricks...." What, pointing out that your wild comparisons have no basis in reality, that they are such divergant cases as to make comparison laughable? I suggest you just try and find a relevant comparison to Manning's traitorous actions. Dreyfus was not a traitor and the My Lai soldiers were murderers, so where is the comparison? Both are merely attempts to elevate Manning by comparing him to famous mis-trials and his "revelations" to infamous events. The Wikidump produced squat, as shown by the fact that professional journos crawled all through it and found nothing of interest. St Jules had to massively edit and manipulate the chopper vid into the "Collateral Murder" work. Please don't waste time and bandwidth trying to deny it as you've already been shown to be wrong in previous threads on the matter on these forums.

The closest I can find is the case of USAAF 2nd Lt Martin Monti, who defected to the Germans in October 1944 and joined the SS. Just like Manning, Monti seems to have developed some reality-distorting outlook not to have realised that the Axis was done for by 1944. Jonathan Pollard might bear comparison but his motives appear more to have been greed than anything else, of which Manning cannot be accused. Maybe you could scale the hyperbole back a notch or two and compare Manning with the stupidity of Jane Fonda posing on an NVA AA gun back in 1972, since both seemed to share both an overgrown sense of self-importance and self-delusion (remember her accusing the American POWs of being liars?), and allowed themselves to be stupidly duped by smarter people, in Manning's case St Jules.

Re: Hey, I think we've been around this block before.

Get a grip, Bryant

"Simply circling back to an old and already defeated issue is just making you look desperate." You originally said: "There was never another court martial whose outcome was so predictable as Manning's was going to be. So I said Alfred Dreyfuss'. I didn't talk about Antisemitism. Or their respective jobs. Or their mental health. Or any combat experience they may have had. Only that Dreyfuss' verdict then was as predictable as Manning's now. C'est tout, Matt.

If you didn't want a comparison to Dreyfus, you could easily have said "No courts martial with false evidence of late 19th century French Jews. I would have respected your perscription.

."I gave you two military tribunals...." Yeah, sandwiched either side of the civil OJ trial." Maybe one day you'll tell me how to unsandwich a earlier reference. Is it like removing a couple of slices of bologna from two pieces of rye? Or in this case, two pieces of bread laying on top of some old bologna.

"I suggest you just try and find a relevant comparison to Manning's traitorous actions." And you'll be the Lord High Arbiter of Relevance. I'll bet you were a terror as a child.

"so where is the comparison?" There is no comparison, because we weren't arguing their actions, we were arguing their TRIBUNALS.

Predictably and suddenly Julian Assange enters to close your case. Assange delenda est. The Emmanuel Goldstein of your existence. The prism through which you see all of reality. You open a bag of crisps and take one out, and it looks like Julian Assange. You watch a football match on the telly and drop your sandwich when you see Julian Assange attempt a header which narrowly misses the goal. His white hair is unmistakable. It was he.

"Jonathan Pollard might bear comparison but his motives appear more to have been greed than anything else."

I'm glad you saved an example of your world class naivete for the end. Oh, Matt, do you really think the State of Israel would have dedicated a park in Jerusalem to Pollard if he were just a mercenary Jew? And all the American Jews and non-Jewish friends of Israel and ex government officials who have spoken out for him and lobbied members of the Administration in Washington for him. For a money grubbing Jew!

Oy, you really don't know much about Realpolitik, do you?

Raging about things like Assange and Manning aren't good for your ticker. You should take up meditation.

Re: Hey, I think we've been around this block before.

"....Only that Dreyfuss' verdict then was as predictable as Manning's now...." No, Dreyfus assumed his record of faithful service would clear his name, whereas Manning's offer to accept lesser charges clearly shows he not only admits his crimes but also knows he will be proven guilty in court of more serious charges in court.

"....Predictably and suddenly Julian Assange enters to close your case...." Oh please, trying to pretend the two are not linked is silly. A$$nut is probably wetting himself hoping that Manning's offer is rejected. If the US authorities do accept Manning's offer then it is a pretty clear indicator that Manning has given them all they need to go after A$$nut. After all, they always had Manning, but St Jules was always the one they really wanted.

".....Raging about things like Assange and Manning....." Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's more a case of laughing at the rather predictable and childish attempts to defend Manning simply because you perceive him as "sticking it to TheMan".

"What feast is toward in thine eternal cell

"That thou so any princes at a shot//So bloodily hath struck?"

On March 26, 2012 Barack Obama famously said to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (caught on an open mike) "Let me get reelected first, he said; then I’ll have a better chance of making something happen."

Did any American President ever speak truer words? Or words more prescient?

Sure enough, on November 6, 2012, the day Obama was reelected, two four star American Generals fell along with the Russian Minister of Defense. One of those American Generals, David Petraeus, had retired from the army and was now Director of the CIA, one of the two or three most powerful positions in the world.

Three days later on November 9, the Russian armed forces' chief, General Nikolai Makarov was dismissed. Makarov, you remember, was the General who announced that the Russian Military reserved the right to take preemptive action against NATO's missile installations, where ever they threatened the Motherland.

The fifth departure is the expected resignation of Leon Panetta, who at 73 and with huge budget problems, is rumored to be quitting as America's Secretary of Defense. Obama would then get a new CIA chief, a new Secretary of Defense and probably a new nomination for NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. All this happened in three days in early November 2012.

Matt I'll concede to you the scuffle we had about Manning and Assange and Dreyfuss and Mandella.

You are right and I was wrong. Plus I'm going to nominate you for the Obediah Slope award for your determination in the face of indifference.

Can we move on from these small potatoes of yours to the Fate of Mankind?

Do you think that mike was left open intentionally? Are the ammo dumps in Russia more secure now with the ex-chief of the CIA testifying before Congress? Will all the appointments by Obama and Putin get to make bring peace in our time. (LG waving piece of paper in air)?

I know how much you hate conspiracies and love coincidences, but come over to the dark side, Matt. It isn't that dark. And it's where most of the matter in the Universe is. Think about it. :o)

Re: "What feast is toward in thine eternal cell

".....Let me get reelected first, he said...." Yeah, well, Obambi has always been more interested in holding onto power than actually DOING anything for his country. It's not like the LIbyan Embassy fiasco happened because he was far busier planning his re-election campaing, no sir!

"....One of those American Generals, David Petraeus, had retired from the army and was now Director of the CIA...." So you're saying it was actually Michelle Obama that sent the threatening emails to Jill Kelley, not Paula Broadwell? I hope you're implying it was so Michelle could get a fellow traveller nominated to the CIA position and not that Patraeus was patting down Michelle too! Mind you, Leon Panetta was just such a choice for CIA director and he lasted just over a year. And if the rumours I hear are anything to go by, the CIA breathed a sigh of relief when Patraeus got the job after the ineffectual Panetta. The problem is who does Obambi turn to after Patraeus? Mike Morell is seen as too close to Dhubya by the Dumicrat faithful which is why he didn't get the job after Panetta. Stephen Kappes is too closely linked with the rendition program for the Dumicrats to stomach and is unlikley to want to come back to the CIA a third time. The scarey version is... Shrillary Clinton, who just happens to be leaving the Secretary of State job! Dun-dun-DAAAAAH!

Tinker, Tailor, General, Stud

Wow. November 6 really rattled your cage. <smirk> Are you actually throwing Benghazi into the discussion? The events at the embassy there are ancient history. We had an election for American citizens to judge Obama's response there amongst other things and HE WON.

Sure it could have been Michelle that sent the emails or there could have in revolt in the CIA funded by Moscow. Or Barack left the doors to the the CIA Headquarters unlocked one prearranged night and let the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation in. Or, more likely, Matt Bryant, we will never know. Sorry.

" the CIA breathed a sigh of relief when Patraeus got the job after the ineffectual Panetta. Would that be the CIA, the whole CIA, and nothing but the CIA? Or maybe there are wheels inside wheels at the agency like in the Smiley novels? A coup. Maybe the honorable and married and fucking around Patraeus was blowing out his extra testosterone on too many Russian ammo depots and Russian airplanes (remember the air show in Indonesia earlier this year?) He's as fucked as Assange. At least Assange isn't married.

"The problem is who does Obambi turn to after Patraeus?" We're going to have to wait and see. Don't let the pints turn into quarts while you're waiting

"Mike Morell is seen as too close to Dhubya by the Dumicrat faithful which is why he didn't get the job after Panetta." Dude, Obama just won BIG. And he's LAME DUCK. If he wants to nominate Mike Morell now (and maybe he will, considering Morell sent sent all those emails for him as per the plans with the Russians.) The Russian Minister of Defense, Serdyukov, was nabbed in a similar honey trap). Maybe Putin gets to pick Obama's nominee and Obama picks the Russian one.

"The scarey version is... Shrillary Clinton," You know, I used to feel that way about Clinton. Until I realized what a worthless appointment Secretary of State is. The good thing about Hillary is that you get Bill at no extra cost. She's a twofer. And there's always Michelle as ghost secretary.

I really want to see Susan Rice at the United Nations. You can hear the blood pressure building up in the Children of Succession when they think about it. Yesterday Obama told off Sen. Lindsey Graham concerning Ambassador Rice. I never liked Obama more.

In his second term, I think you're really going to hate him. In spades.

Re: Tinker, Tailor, General, Stud

"Wow. November 6 really rattled your cage....." Nah, it was predictable. Romney needed to be at least five points clear in the polls to even stand a chance and going into the final weeks he wasn't close to that. Personally I can't see why his loss came as such a surprise to a lot of Republicans.

"......Are you actually throwing Benghazi into the discussion?...." Well, you did bring up Obambi's determination to concentrate on re-election rather than Prez work. Oh, sorry, did you actually think it was a GOOD thing that he was more interested in securing four more years rather than doing his job? The Libyan fiasco happened because no-one in the State Department was concentrating on the business in hand, they were all too busy making Obambi pins. I suppose now that it looks like Shrillary is retiring we'll soon see her getting the blame and being added to the collection of ex-Obamites under the wheels of his bus.

"....Russian airplanes....." Russian jets have a history of falling out of the sky at airshows with embarrassing regularity. Simply search on Yahoogle for "jet fighter airshow crash" and you'll see waaaaaaaay more Russian examples than Western jets, simply because the Russians still haven't quite got the hang of moving away from the lots-but-cheap design mindset to the quality-beats-numbers mindset of the West. An indication of just how dire Russian manufacturing remains is that the Russian instructors that flew the Indian-built Sukhoi Su-30MKI said it was not just better than the original Sukhoi but built by Hindustan Aeronautics to a much high quality than the Russian VVS's Su-30M2 model!

".....I really want to see Susan Rice at the United Nations....." Why do you think she wouldn't be a good Sec of State? She's an Obamite, black, female - oh, sorry, did I forget to mention she also does have some experience of international affairs? I know you Dumicrats don't usually consider the whole experience thing much but in this case she's no newbie. She has also (just about) managed to see out her term at the UN without alienating too many people, so she would seem politically agile enough. Now, if Obambi made her Sec of State and put Patraeus in the UN, now that would be fun!

Re: Tinker, Tailor, General, Stud

I don't doubt you called it for Obama. I was worried after the first debate, but from the second one on all I read was that "the polls were even but Obama was ahead." After a few of weeks of that I knew he would win. I don't have tv so I heard nothing from the 'pundits'. At 8:30 pt a friend called to tell me Obama had won. Did you fancy Romney? Are you sorry he lost?

These last two years, while a Democrat, I haven't been impressed with Obama. His use of drones and the encircling of Russia with missile defense shield installations; and telling Moscow: "Trust but don't verify." Former Soviet Republics were invited to join NATO so that organization could host a missile site in the new member.

Members of NATO, after having drunk the Kool-aid of American Mortgage Backed Securities and Credit Default Swaps a decade ago, were now wiping their lips on their sleeves, in anticipation of drinking more of the missile emplacements in Georgia and dislodging Russia's Black Sea fleet at Odessa. Same for Ukraine and their berths at Sevastopol.

Obama's foreign policy seemed written by Nixon's Pentagon planners. A policy that will bring the world to grief.

I was concerned about Obama' victory for one reason: the reappointment of Bernanke.

Weren't the events in Benghazi in the purview of your guy Petraeus (whom I like but not as a policy making general)?

Re: Re: Tinker, Tailor, General, Stud

"....Did you fancy Romney? ....." Not particularly. Not a bad speaker, seems quite intelligent, but not the type that was going to rouse enough of the population to sweep Obambi out of the Whitehouse. Definately not the Republican's new Reagan, and that is what they needed. As for his comments on the "47% of voters" and Obambi buying votes with "gifts to the ethnic monorities", where has he been for the last tewnty-odd years? The US demographics have changed and he needed to appeal to a wider audience, especially in the swing states. That's been clear since Bill Clinton's first election, when he was called "America's first black prez" because he thought outside the traditional white vote I think the Republicans worried far too much about the Jewish vote in Florida and not enough about the other ethnic groups in other states.

As for the Susan Rice bashers, that's hardly surprising seeing as John Kerry has a lot of friends and wants the job himself. And John Kerry in any position of authority would be a sure-fire disaster, so much so as to make Susan Rice look like a diplomatic Einstein! Shrillary Clinton will leave office and be scapegoated for the Libyan fiasco as it is a neat solution that suits all. In politics you keep your enemies close because there are few real friends, nothing but friends-of-convenience, even amongst your own party. Nothing brings out the real colours of politicians as when two from the same camp go for the same job. Remeber all the mud-slinging between Obambi's followers and Shrillary's in the 2008 Presidential nomination race?

But we're getting a long way from the topic in hand - Manning. The election is out of the way, Obambi doesn't have to worry about a backlash amongst the Faithful for four more years, so he can now really fry Manning and go after St Jules. I would be surprised if the US authorities accept Manning's offer unless he has already agreed to provide testimaony against A$$nut, what do you think?

Re: Tinker, Tailor, General, Stud

"not the type that was going to rouse enough of the population to sweep Obambi out of the Whitehouse." Indeed. Has any other candidate in the last 100 years so obstinately AND successfully resisted releasing his tax returns? Even you must have wondered who some of the interest and dividend payers on Romney's unreleased 1099 were. Then there were the flip flops on Russia, when he had to send Number Two Son to Moscow to tell someone to tell Putin that Mitt was just kidding when he said Russia was so evil. He flip flopped on abortion, never wise with so many evangelical voters in the GOP. Finally, how many voters didn't vote for him in the primaries because he was a Mormon, and then didn't vote for him on Nov. 6 for the same reason?

Don't ambassadors (those who have been reappointed after a second term win) have to be reconfirmed by the Senate? Conceivably, if Ambassador Rice were merely renominated for the UN job, she could run into a lot trouble with the GOP (she flipped the bird at Holbrooke). What if everybody (including Matt Bryant) were talking about her as Secretary of State and then, let's say, Bill Clinton got the nomination? After a huge sigh of relief, Rice's confirmation for a second term for the UN wouldn't be a problem. The relief she didn't go to State would be palpable. Also Obama may not want to lose Kerry's Senate seat just to put him in State.

"Nothing brings out the real colours of politicians as when two from the same camp go for the same job. Remeber all the mud-slinging between Obambi's followers and Shrillary's in the 2008 Presidential nomination race?" Poppycock! 100 years ago the Repugs set the record when Roosevelt split the party, Taft lost and Wilson won. They tied the record again in 1992 when Perot split the GOP vote, Bush lost, and Clinton sneaked in.

" I would be surprised if the US authorities accept Manning's offer unless he has already agreed to provide testimaony against A$$nut, what do you think?" Manning's offer? Manning's offer? It's out of mind. Remind me of it again.

Here's what I want for Bradley Manning. I want him to tell the court the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It would sadden me to learn he withheld facts or embellished them at the behest of his jailers to get a cell with a view or an extra portion of Spam every week. I would not want him to diminish or exaggerate Assange's role in all of this. I'm sure you feel the same way.

Factoids:

"Nikolai Makarov was Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia and First Deputy Minister of Defense from 2008 to November 2012."

"The Makarov pistol or PM (Russian: Пистолет Макарова, Pistolet Makarova, literally Makarov's Pistol) is a semi-automatic pistol design. Under the project leadership of Nikolay Fyodorovich Makarov, it became the Soviet Union's standard military side arm from 1951-1991."

"Anatoliy Eduardovich Serdyukov is a Russian politician and businessman who was the Defense Minister of Russia from 15 February 2007 to 6 November 2012. During his tenure as Defense Minister, he launched several major reforms of the Russian military."

"Initially this gun was designed to meet Russian Army requirements for a high capacity pistol with effective range of no less than 50 meters. To achieve such characteristics, a new cartridge was developed - SP-10 (9x21) with AP steel core bullets, designed to deal with targets in bulletproof vests or hiding in cars etc (capable of near to 100% successful penetration of 30 layers of Kevlar plus up to 2.8mm titanium plate at 100 meters).

When, in the mid-1990s, Russian Army lost interest in this gun in the favor of the 9x19mm developments, some Russian Law-enforcement agencies picked up this gun, and in 1996 it was adopted by FSB ( Federal Security Service, a part of the former KGB) and some other agencies. The development of this pistol and ammunition for it continued into the 21st century, and, in 2003, its improved version was finally adopted by the Russian Government for military and police use as the SPS - Samozaryadnyj Pistolet Serdjukova - Serdyukov Self-loading pistol. Originally known as "Gyurza", or as SR-1 "Vektor" (in FSB service), this pistol had been developed by the designer Piotr Serdyukov at TSNIITOchMash (Central Research and Development Institute of Precision Machine Building, in Klimovsk city, Russia). At the present time this pistol is used by the various FSB and FSO (Russian state VIP protection service) troops.

The SPS is a short recoil operated, locked breech pistol. The slide to barrel locking is achieved by the tilting locking piece, located under the barrel, much like the Walther P38 or Beretta 92. The return spring is located around the barrel. Frame is made from steel upper part and the polymer grip and the trigger guard. Slide is made of steel. Double action trigger featured automatic Glock-like trigger safety, plus internal firing pin safety and the automated grip safety. No manual safeties are provided on the gun. Until the very recent production guns, SR-1 also lacked the slide stop. The external hammer can be put on the half-cock position for increased safety. It must be noted, that the DA mode will fork only if the hammer is on half-cock. The gun is fed using steel, double stack magazines that hold 18 rounds of 9x21 mm ammo.

9x21mm ammunition now available in basic Armour Piercing form, as well as with expanding increased stopping power bullets, non-ricocheting training bullets, and some other types. The one downside of this ammo is that it is very expensive, at least now, having cost several times more than of any commercially available 9x19mm ammo.

I had the chance to inspect this gun (pictured above), during September, 2003, but not fired it yet. In my opinion, the grip is just too big for shooter with average palms. The grip safety also may play a dirty trick with the shooter, since it may not be disengaged if the gun held improperly during the stress situation, so, many FSB field operatives simply block this safety off by some sort of scotch tape. Sights are somewhat tiny. But, otherwise, the SPS is a fine and very powerful close combat weapon, that could be used as well as defensive, and as offensive weapon, especially in the room and car search scenarios, where single-hand controllability and good penetration of the round are welcome."

Have you had occasion to fire either of these pistols? The Makarov is good looking and resembles the Walther. the Serdyukov has a frightening appearance. It looks like a side arm in 1984.

Re: Tinker, Tailor, General, Stud

"....Bill Clinton got the nomination...." Bill is retired. He may have come out of retirement to help Obambi's re-election but he won't be going into a full-time role. Besides, I don't think Obambi's ego could cope with working with someone more popular and better at the job than him!

".... I want for Bradley Manning. I want him to tell the court the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....." Manning obviously has no interest in doing any such thing, as shown by the offer to accept lesser charges.

".....Have you had occasion to fire either of these pistols?...." Sorry, no. The Makarov has a good rep for being relaible, it's a blowback so has few moving parts. I do know a collector in the States that has a Makarov but he rarely shoots it, it is not one of his favourite guns. He prefers the even older Tokarev. As for the Serdyukov, it's far too rare to expect any to be available to shoot in the West yet. Didn't it lose the competition for the Russian general service pistol to the MP443 Grach? If so then I would expect the Grach to be more likely to turn up in the West. You thinking of tradng in your PPK/S?

Re: Tinker, Tailor, General, Stud

Sorry, but Bill is not retired. Until Obama's reelection campaign this year, he was just resting up for Hillary in 16. And what better place to get organized in, with all the free computer time and paper clips, but the Office of Secretary of State? Now that Obama is home free, he knows he owes Bill big time and Clinton will have the use of the Great Seal ad libitum.

"More than ever, in the final weeks of the election, Obama has come to rely on Clinton, whom he has jokingly called his “Secretary of Explaining Stuff,” after the former president’s rousing, much-heralded speech at the Democratic National Convention, to make the case that the nation's economy is on the path to recovery."

"Manning obviously has no interest in doing any such thing, as shown by the offer to accept lesser charges."

One part of the military I have always held in high regard are the officers appointed to defend the soldiers before a court martial. If the lesser charges are true and his lawyer recommends that he take the plea, why does that mean "Manning obviously has no interest in doing any such thing?" Perhaps his lawyer is having him plead to indefensible charges to free up more time to defend against the charges upon which they may prevail.

I thought the Makarov was very good looking, but the Serdyukov is what I'd like to see up close. I'm not much interested in sidearms these days. Dim eye, shaky hand. But I'll need a piece when the markets are out of food and I have to shoot a squirrel for dinner. BTW, my ppk doesn't say made in Germany. It says made in W Germany. I could trade it in, but it's not registered. I've heard stories about unregistered guns brought to the police station to get registered and confiscated there for mickey mouse reasons. The photos of the Tokapeb are very impressive. Everything about it came up in Russian. It looks heavy.

Did you see this photo of Hu and Xi shaking hands at the end of the Party Conference? http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/titlepic/113712176_title0h.jpg.

They were resplendent in their Armani tailored Vicuna Mao jackets, paid for by the West. It looks like they're about to adjourn for a cigar and peruse statements of China's 3 trillion dollar balance in reserve currencies.

@radariba And what planet do you live on?

What exactly did Manning do?

Releasing the docs? That's one thing. It doesn't answer how he got the docs in the first place.

Manning is in a bit of hot water because unlike in the 1971 case, the material release by Manning, did not cross Manning's desk, nor did he have access to those documents. His plea of 'guilty' on those counts is merely window dressing in a way to blunt the full force of what the prosecution can show as well as ask in terms of prison time. He could be facing 100+ years based on the amount of documents he pilfered. (Not that he will get that much time.) Pleading guilty to the release of the documents helps reduce the burden and cost to the defense.

I think the documents should be released, and the videos. But maybe not now. Maybe in 20 years time. Soon enough so people remember what was going on, and late enough that the information isn't as valuable.

But to never release these documents would be a crime as we need to be honest with ourselves about what our governments did/are doing.

Maybe the better policy would have been to hold these documents until the government declassified them, then add yours to the pile with a suitable shock filled headline.

Like I said, I wouldn't like to call it. He did wrong, but how much wrong?

The USA, like most Western Democracy’s, has systems for releasing documents into the public domain. Some might remain secret for decades, but the vast majority of them would have been released after 20 years.

Sorry, I was trying to suggest that some documents may be kept secret forever knowing that it would cause a public outcry if released. Either destroyed or put in the back of a cupboard somewhere, never to see the light of day again.

I'm for full disclosure of everything, I can probably say with some certainty that it hasn't ever happened, and I'm not sure how it would even work.

Having a random Private turn up and release it when he hasn't got the full picture of what is going on is definitely not the way to do it though.

Leaving aside the terrorists and fellow travellers did anyone seriously learn anything from the pile of cr*p that has come out?

1) So diplomats have opinions.

2) Their honest feelings are not always warm and cuddly about the places in which they serve.

3) Many governments are multi-faced, say several things, do many other things.

4) Some leaders are not very competent thugs, surrounded by violent and often nasty people.

Who did not know this short laundry list before?

The risk that some who did not support the more evil 'tribes' can perhaps be identified appears to have been ignored by those lauding this feeble contract breaker.

Still the one good thing, we now know the World President of wikileaks is no different to all tyrants, me first and sod everyone else.'Just to prove it I will stay with a dodgy bunch while my mess is swept away.'

Oh, I don't like going down this path...

How is Bradley Manning leaking information (assuming that he did, which hasn't yet been proven yet), any different that the White House leaking classified information? A leak is a leak, isn't it? Isn't there something about "equal protection", and something about "arbitrary and capricious" laws and enforcement? The White House does it to make the president look good, but it's still a violation of the law (The correct way to do it would be to declassify the information, not leak it.). In Manning's case, the primary motivation appears to have been an attempt to prevent the cover-up of a crime, specifically what was very probably a war crime.

Wasn't one of the results of the Nuremburg trials the Nuremburg Principles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

And, according to one interpretation of these, Bradley Manning was morally obligated to expose the attempted cover-up of various war crimes (specifically, Principle VII and VI).

Re: Oh, I don't like going down this path...

"How is Bradley Manning leaking information (assuming that he did, which hasn't yet been proven yet), any different that the White House leaking classified information?"

Because Bradley swore oaths and signed papers promising not to? Whereas Whitehouse leaks are almost certainly authorised at some level and made with careful consideration, with a top-down view. What Manning did was simply leak a sh!t-ton of stuff without consideration or even full awareness, because he was bitter and pi$$ed off and feeling spiteful..

More specifically, Bradley wasn't 'tactically' releasing documents 'for the public good' or setting out to uncover war crimes. If he had selected a few articles which specifically exposed problems, then he could perhaps argue that case, but the simple bulk-download (without even reading the contents in full, given their sheer volume) and exposure shows the crime definitely wasn't motivated by guilt or a desire to uncover wrong-doing. On the other hand, it wasn't motivated with money or desire for glory either. Instead it was a bitter act of someone who was not mentally stable enough to have been handling restricted information in the first place.

Manning signed up to keep his mouth shut and knew the penalties he would face for breaking the rules. He broke those rules and will suffer the consequences for them. I wouldn't go as far as executing him (due to the limited value of the information leaked), but he'll certainly be in military prison for a long time.

However, the real crime to my mind was the time and circumstances of his imprisonment prior to trial, and allowing someone clearly unstable to continue to work with restricted information.

Please quit the sensationalist nonsense.

"...... If Manning is found guilty of the charges as they stand, he could face the death penalty......" The death penalty is already off the table and has never been even slightly likely, so please stop sounding like a teen cub reporter on the local Student Union rag.

Lets set the record straight....

From the article:

"If Manning is found guilty of the charges as they stand, he could face the death penalty."

While this may be factually correct, that under the law, if found guilty this would be the maximum penalty allowed, it has already been stated by the prosecution that they would not be seeking the death penalty. Not to mention that there have already been cases of espionage tried and convicted where they did not seek the death penalty and the breaches were more serious that Manning's breach in terms of information being leaked.

So its a bit misleading to trot out the death penalty (smells a bit yellow) , when its not being sought by the prosecution.

IMHO this is a smart tactic by the defense. Its definitely a way to reduce his sentence and an effort to hide some of the facts coming to light if there was a trial.